Wednesday, January 16, 2013

I Didn't Shoot the Sheriff, But He and I Might Shoot the Deputies

Some harsh realities in life shouldn't be sugar-coated to make them seem more palatable. The truth of the 2nd Amendment is one of these.

The wonderful if horrifying fact is that the 2nd Amendment wasn't made for hunting, or for target practice. It exists to acknowledge and enshrine the right of the People and the States to defense... the right to kill bad people when necessary. It writes into (supposedly) immutable law the self-delegated authority to kill one's attackers, and to defend those you deem need defending.

It also primarily authorizes the States to defend themselves against a tyrannical Federal Government. I'm paraphrasing of course.

The Constitution itself would not have been ratified by the States without Congress agreeing to a deal to include the 2nd Amendment. Look it up! This is part of your history, and the same could be said of the other nine Amendments in the Bill of Rights. In fact, there was initially a slate of 13, of which three failed to pass ratification.

What I'm saying is that our country would not even exist without the 2nd Amendment, and NOT because of the British, but because the States themselves would not have agreed to allow this form of government to come into existence without these specific liberty-defending concepts being rightly included in our founding charter. They didn't invest that much trust into the central Federal government to be willing to sign on without them.

I actually don't think a nation-wide post-Hurricane-Katrina-like gun seizure will take place. It can't, thank God. Not nation-wide. Even as detestable and IMHO evil the plans our collectivists-in-charge may have, I don't think they're going to "send in Federal Deputies" because they aren't willing to kick off Civil War II.

If they did, A) open warfare and widespread bloodshed would be the certain outcome, and B) their own personal demise would be likewise assured.

The militia in almost every State - and I'm using the old correct definition of "militia" here - would rise up, and there doesn't exist in this country a civil or military force willing to enforce draconian unconstitutional Executive Orders against the general population.

They won't even try.

Because if they did, We the People would rebel.

But if the Federal Deputies were trying to enforce Federal Law, wouldn't that make our response (rebellion) illegal?

Yes, No, and So What?

No nation is going to say to its constituents "Hey, you know what? We're OK with you guys rebelling. Seriously! It is not an issue!" Truly rebelling against the top authority is always going to be "illegal", if only because the top authority says it is. If the government wants to oppress you, they're not going to give you permission to fight back. Even our Founding Fathers knew they'd be executed as criminal traitors if they lost the Revolution.

So despite the opening lines in the Declaration of Independence, the Framers simply could not enshrine a "Right to Rebel" into the Constitution. That would have been like saying "We don't mind if you want to be a Hippie" and would have simply set our country on an insanely permissive road leading rapidly to anarchy.

Because if you have a "Right to Rebel", then you could rebel for any reason...

"Tell me why I don't like Mondays!" (I have no idea why you don't like Mondays. That silicon chip inside your head's probably been switched to overload or something.) "Well, to Heck with YOU, Mr. Racist!" (What? We're the same ethnicity! What's wrong with you???) "Goodbye, Union!" (Are you serious?) "Hey! It's a RIGHT, isn't it??? I can rebel if I want to, can't I? You can't stop me! Don't you try to stop me! Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Come and see the repression inherent in the- wait.. that's been done before, hasn't it?" (Well, don't let the door hit you in your head, again, on your way out...)

So a general "Right to Rebel" was out. But the Framers' writings make it clear they did not want the Federal Government to become tyrannical (and the "checks & balances" system was supposed to be the main guard against that, and it actually did a good job before it became the "cheques and balances" system), so they had to make it clear that the States and the People have the right to defend themselves if it did.

The 2nd Amendment is about the narrow "Right to Rebel against Tyranny".

Some would even say "Duty", but at least it certainly is a "Right".

That's correct, kids; aside from robbers, muggers, and various assorted thugs, the 2nd Amendment is about shooting Federal Agents, not deer. But only when they really deserve it, like when they invade your home, your State, or try to forcibly (and that's the operative word, by the way) impose illegal/unconstitutional laws upon the citizenry, like (to cite an example purely at random) attempting to confiscate your last line of defense against them.

God Forbid the Feds be so foolish as to incite civil war amongst us!

God Forbid our government tries to show us the true meaning of "tyranny"!

God Forbid we be forced to gun down our fellow Americans in order to defend our liberty, our homes, and our lives!

This must not be allowed to come to pass!

But...

If they choose to come against us, doing so against our advice, our warnings, and our will, then OK.

2 comments:

My first reaction was to ask, if such a thing occurred, if I could come and stay on your ranch in Texas. (or homestead? I've never been to Texas. I'm not sure what they're called ;)) I'm the only adult around here and I have children. I have shot guns in the past for sport, but it was a long time ago and I never really wanted the responsibility of owning a gun.

But, as often happens when I read your posts, I thought about it again. It's not just my right, is it? It's my duty. I am an adult American. I have children to protect. The second amendment was written for my protection, but if I am unwilling to take on the responsibility of owning a gun, I'm no better off than I would be without it. I shouldn't be expecting SOMEONE ELSE to defend my liberties. (I'm a conservative, not a LIBERAL!) I've never been a member of the military, but I hold their service in high regard. Every year we go to a little town Memorial Day parade which is a delightful procession of loud fire trucks, high school bands and really old guys dressed in uniforms carrying flags. We stand more than we sit during the parade as the flag is carried by so often. Several sets of fighters in formation always fly by as we watch. It always makes me proud to be an American. I need to remember that being an American is not always about being blessed. Sometimes it's about being brave.

If we give up our guns now, we give up our childrens' future. Having spent some time in uniform, I strongly believe that a sizeable majority of the military would not hesitate to fight against tyranny on our shores. The oath says "all enemies, foreign and domestic," and, although I've been out for a while, I suspect a growing percentage of our military ARE seeing an enemy in the domestic arena. This might be the one country in the world where a military coup, if necessary, would result in more, not less, freedom for the people. That's why I am in favor of an all-volunteer force, not reinstating the draft: It keeps people there who are willing to defend a priciple, rather than just do their time and go.